IMD World Talent Report 2015 - No Fleurs du Mal for Hungary?

IMD WORLD TALENT REPORT 2015

– NO „FLEURS DU MAL” FOR HUNGARY?

Olivér Kovács1 2

Abstract

This paper offers some ammunition to better understand Hungary’s position in the IMD World Talent

Report 2015 (IMD WTR 2015). It gives a brief overview on the methodology of the IMD WTR by calling

the attention to its main features. It then presents the 2015 ranking and puts the focus on Hungary’s

withering talent competitiveness. The paper conveys the message that an overarching and consistent

reform package is a must in the education system to foster talent utilisation; however, that package is

likely to be insufficient unless the economic policy addresses the relevant shortcomings of the

Hungarian innovation ecosystem.

1 The views expressed in this study are those of the author and do not necessarily represent that of the ICEGEuropean Center with which the author is affiliated.2 Olivér Kovács, Research Fellow, ICEG European Center, Member of the Public Body of the Economics and LawSection of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Committee on World Economics and Development Studies.Contact: okovacs@icegec.hu, oliverkovacs.com

Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 3

II. METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................................... 4

III. RESULTS OF THE WORLD TALENT REPORT 2015................................................................................ 6

IV. HUNGARY IN THE IMD WTR 2015 ...................................................................................................... 7

4.1 The bird’s eye view on Hungary .................................................................................................... 7

4.2 A broader view on Hungary’s talent competitiveness ................................................................ 10

V. CONCLUDING REMARKS.................................................................................................................... 17

References ............................................................................................................................................. 18

I. INTRODUCTION

On 18th of November 2015, IMD World Competitiveness Center published the 2015 edition of its well-known World Talent Report (henceforward: IMD WTR 2015) which paints a general picture about theextent to which countries develop, attract and retain talent to sustain the talent pool available forenterprises operating in those economies.

Despite the admitted weaknesses of any aggregated rankings regarding competitiveness that arepublished by various organisations around the world3, it is scientifically instructive to have a map ontalent competitive countries in our turbulent time when the co-evolution of economic, social andenvironmental challenges are placing serious obstacles in front of achieving sustainable socio-economic development.

The dynamic configuration of the processes among public, private and civic sectors’ stakeholderswithin an innovation ecosystem exerts influence on the availability of talent of which knowledge is aprerequisite of any value creation. Talent is crucial for adopt to changes, to propel novelty along alearning curve and to gain more competitiveness at micro and macro levels alike. For example, talentis important not only in case of the real economy, but also in case of the financial sector. Althoughfinancial sector and the real economy are generally viewed as two coexisting and different worlds, theyare heavily intertwined and interconnected (Blanchard, 2013) and are exerting influence on each other(Davis, 2010). More talent in the real economy can lead to more output produced per unit of capital,while more talent in the financial sector is expected to foster more efficient allocation of financialresources (Shaknov, 2014).4

The issues of how to develop, how to attract, and how to keep top talent have become an importantpriority on the policy agenda. The quantity and quality of available talent dynamically determines theoverall degree for extensive experimentation in the innovation ecosystem of the given country.5

Experiments are of key importance for living organisms, such as the society, because experimentsimpel the system to improve and gain new competencies, new level of quality of life which is moresustainable, environment-aware and resistant to shocks.6

The structure of this short paper is as follows. Chapter 2 gives a brief overview on the methodology ofthe IMD WTR by calling the attention to its main features. Chapter 3 then presents the ranking of theIMD WTR 2015. Chapter 4 focuses on Hungary’s position and also offers some ammunition to get abetter understanding over its declining trajectory. Finally, Chapter 5 concludes.

3 In the highly globalised world economy and in the era of knowledge economies interspersed with the dominance of services,there are at least two phenomena that are making the picture on talent competitiveness squishier: (1) work styles have beenchanging and remote working, mobile working gain momentum. In this light, talent can easily work even for foreigncompanies without emigrating. (2) Innovative places attract workers, expatriating workers are therefore more and moreubiquitous (e.g. from Central and Eastern Europe, from the countries of Eastern Partnership Countries like Moldova, Georgiaetc.). Accordingly, the ranking does not capture when talented workers emigrate to work for foreign companies. Additionally,and for instance, when a foreign subsidiary of Siemens improves the competitiveness of that country (Siemens is present in200 countries), should its talent be omitted from the assessment of the mother country or should they be incorporated too?4 Of course, the escalation of financial markets may be entailed with more opportunity for casino finance (i.e. financialsolutions created in the spirit of obtaining higher gains in the short term by neglecting the real economic consequences ofsuch financial behaviour over the medium term.5 In respect to talent creation, let us note that evidence suggest that the real GDP growth is not associated primarily with thesheer number of educated people, but with the configuration of processes in the innovation ecosystem that can driveproductivity. Cross-national data do not fully support the widely held belief that there is a strong positive correlation between increases in human capital attributable to the rising educational attainment of the labour force and the rate of growth ofoutput per worker. On the contrary, there is no evidence about that, see the paper of Prichett (2001).6 There are various terms for such an ability: being resilient, being ‘antifragile’. See: Taleb (2014).

II. METHODOLOGY

The IMD WTR 2015 includes a talent ranking for all countries that are part of the IMD WorldCompetitiveness Yearbook (61 countries in 2015). The data are gathered from the Center’s extensivedatabase, which encompasses 20 years of competitiveness-related data. All data employed in thedevelopment of the report can be accessed through the World Competitiveness Online website. Thereport assesses countries on three aggregated factors – investment and development; appeal andreadiness – which in turn are derived from a much broader range of indicators:

The first factor takes into account the investment in and development of home-grown talent. Ittraces the size of public investment on education by incorporating an indicator of publicexpenditure. It also looks at the quality of education through indicators related to pupil-teacherratios. The development of talent is covered by variables related to the implementation ofapprenticeship and the priority of employee training for companies. It also looks at thedevelopment of the female labour force. In addition, this factor takes into account the quality ofthe health infrastructure in terms of meeting the health needs of society.

The appeal factor goes beyond the focus on the local labour force to incorporate the ability of acountry to tap into the overseas talent pool. It does so by including indicators such as the cost ofliving and quality of life in a particular economy. Specifically, it examines the ability of a countryto attract highly skilled foreign labour. In addition, it assesses the way enterprises prioritize theattraction and retention of talent. Another component of this factor evaluates the impact of braindrain on the competitiveness of countries. It also takes into account the level of workermotivation. Salary and taxation levels are important for an economy to be able to maintain aneffective flow of talent. The appeal factor thus considers remuneration at the management andservices professions levels and personal income tax rates. This factor also incorporates measuresof personal security and the protection of private property rights because they play a key role inincreasing the attractiveness of a particular economy.

The success of the investment in and development of talent and the ability to attract and retaintalent is reflected in the availability of skills and competencies to sustain an economy’s talent pool.The readiness factor looks at the context of the talent pool. It considers the growth of the labourforce and the quality of the skills available. It also takes into consideration the experience andcompetencies of the existing senior managers’ pool. In addition, the readiness factor focuses onthe ability of the educational system to meet the talent needs of enterprises. It examines the wayin which the educational system fulfils the talent demands of the economy, the ability of highereducation to meet that demand and the language skills available. Finally, it considers the mobilityof students (inbound) and educational assessment (PISA) (IMD WTR 2015:6).

It is important to note that such ranking must be always judged and evaluated with meticulous carewithout neglecting two things. First, quantitative data are complemented with subjective judgementscaptured by the conducted survey (Executive Survey).7 Soft data (opinions from the survey) aredominating over hard data (statistics) both in case of the appeal and the readiness factors gatheredfrom the executive survey conducted. It is well-known from psychological studies that the time horizonof subjective opinions and perceptions spans over years instead of being based on only one year byrepresenting tendencies, memories, and attitudes. These form the ‘psychic capital’, a term coined byKenneth E. Boulding in 1950. This channel is heavily influenced by economic policy measures and theiruncertainty-generating or dampening impacts. By uncertainty we mean the Knightian definition

7 For example, IMD WTR does not take into account in all cases the number of private higher education institutions beyondthe public ones. In case of Finland, there are no public universities since 2010. This may distort the whole picture since thenumber of private institutions is traditionally high in Japan or in the Korea (Republic). In Hungary, the share of privateeducation institutions at all levels is pretty much close to the OECD average. In addition, if one looks at the number of privateuniversities or private higher education institutions in Armenia, Belarus, Georgia or in Ukraine, it can be concluded that theyhave relatively high numbers of those (e.g. to date, in Georgia, that number is double that of the public ones (53), while inUkraine, the number of higher education institutions is 800! Data are from national statistical offices, GeoStat, UkrStat).

(unknown risk) (Knight, 1921). Uncertainty can be associated with a decision’s exact outcome as wellas with the issue of what shall a socio-economic actor (e.g. firm, government) do under the givencomplex circumstances. In this way, the ‘trust infrastructure’ is influenced in the society, importantly,the trust exuded by the citizens and firms towards the state and its institutions. 8 The room forunfolding talent in a society inevitably relies on the trust infrastructure since knowledge sharing ispromoted more in a higher trust base environment.9 Second, this is a relative ranking, a certainmovement in case of a country does not necessarily caused by developments within that country butother countries have improved or declined in a greater or lesser extent.

Box 1. Dominating soft factors in the Appeal and Readiness dimensions

Investment and development factor (Share of subjective opinions: 37.5%):- Total public expenditure on education as percentage of GDP (STATISTICS);- Total public expenditure on education per pupil as percentage of GDP per capita (STATISTICS);- Ratio of students to teaching staff, primary school (STATISTICS);- Ratio of students to teaching staff, secondary school (STATISTICS);- Apprenticeship is sufficiently implemented (SOFT DATA);- Employee training is a high priority in companies (SOFT DATA);- Percentage of total labour force (STATISTICS);- Health infrastructure meets the needs of society (SOFT DATA).Appeal factor (Share of subjective opinions: 60%):- Cost of living (STATISTICS);- Attracting and retaining talents is a priority in companies (SOFT DATA);- Worker motivation (SOFT DATA);- Brain drain (SOFT DATA);- Quality of life (SOFT DATA);- Foreign skilled people (SOFT DATA);- Remuneration in services professions (STATISTICS);- Remuneration of management (STATISTICS);- Effective personal income tax rate (STATISTICS);- Personal security and private property rights (SOFT DATA).Readiness factor (Share of subjective opinions: 75%):- Labour force growth (STATISTICS);- Skilled labour (SOFT DATA);- Finance skills (SOFT DATA);- International experience (SOFT DATA);- Competent senior managers (SOFT DATA);- Educational system (SOFT DATA);- Science in schools (SOFT DATA);- University education (SOFT DATA);- Management education (SOFT DATA);- Language skills (SOFT DATA);- Student mobility inbound (STATISTICS);- Educational assessment – PISA (STATISTICS).

Source: own compilation based on IMD WTR 2015.

8 The declining tendency in trust can be captured in many ways, for example, the trajectory of the number of emigrated youngand highly skilled career starters can be seen as a good proxy for that purpose. In case of Hungary, almost 400,000 youngcareer starters left the country between 2010 and 2013 (See: Central Statistical Office of Hungary).9 Trusting relationship is a hotbed for a more intensive sharing of useful and relevant knowledge. Novelty or new combinationof old and well-known thoughts is expected to come when talent collaborate in the trust-base creative cultural environment.So, trust promotes social and emotional ties on the one hand and promotes professional collaboration on the other hand,both facilitators of knowledge sharing (Chowdhury, 2005).

III. RESULTS OF THE WORLD TALENT REPORT 2015

In the 2015 edition of the World Talent Report, Switzerland leads the way in meeting corporate needsthrough developing, attracting and retaining talent. The report ranks Denmark second andLuxembourg third, with Norway, the Netherlands, Finland, Germany, Canada, Belgium and Singaporecompleting the top 10. Several major economies fare less impressively, with the US languishing in 14thplace, the UK 21st, France 27th and China Mainland far behind in the list (40th position).

Table 1. World Talent Report 2015 – Changes in the ranking

2015 Country 2014 Change from 2014 2015 Country 2014 Change from 2014

1 Switzerland 1 - → 31 Korea Rep. 40 +9 ↗

2 Denmark 2 - → 32 Poland 36 +4 ↗

3 Luxembourg 13 +10 ↗ 33 Estonia 30 -3 ↘

4 Norway 10 +6 ↗ 34 Thailand 34 - →

5 Netherlands 7 +2 ↗ 35 Greece 42 +7 ↗

6 Finland 4 -2 ↘ 36 Kazakhstan 32 -4 ↘

7 Germany 3 -4 ↘ 37 Jordan 39 +2 ↗

8 Canada 8 - → 38 Slovenia 49 +11 ↗

9 Belgium 17 +8 ↗ 39 Spain 45 +6 ↗

10 Singapore 16 +6 ↗ 40 China Mainland 43 +3 ↗

11 Sweden 9 -2 ↘ 41 Indonesia 25 -16 ↘

12 China Hong Kong 21 +9 ↗ 42 Italy 47 +5 ↗

13 Australia 19 +6 ↗ 43 Chile 44 +1 ↗

14 USA 12 -2 ↘ 44 Philippines 41 -3 ↘

15 Malaysia 5 -10 ↘ 45 Russia 53 +8 ↗

16 Ireland 6 -10 ↘ 46 Turkey 35 -11 ↘

17 Iceland 14 -3 ↘ 47 Slovak Republic 46 -1 ↘

18 New Zealand 26 +8 ↗ 48 Romania 38 -10 ↘

19 Austria 11 -8 ↘ 49 Mexico 50 +1 ↗

20 UAE 15 -5 ↘ 50 Colombia 54 +4 ↗

21 United Kingdom 20 -1 ↘ 51 South Africa 56 +5 ↗

22 Israel 18 -4 ↘ 52 India 48 -4 ↘

23 Taiwan 27 +4 ↗ 53 Argentina 55 +2 ↗

24 Lithuania 29 +5 ↗ 54 Mongolia N/A N/A

25 Portugal 33 +8 ↗ 55 Ukraine 31 -24 ↘

26 Japan 28 +2 ↗ 56 Hungary 51 -5 ↘

27 France 24 -3 ↘ 57 Brazil 52 -5 ↘

28 Latvia 23 -5 ↘ 58 Croatia 58 - →

29 Qatar 22 -7 ↘ 59 Peru 57 -2 ↘

30 Czech Republic 37 +7 ↗ 60 Venezuela 59 -1 ↘

61 Bulgaria 60 -1 ↘Source: IMD WTR 2015

Brazil slips to 57th place while other Latin American economies also struggled, with Chile 43rd, Mexico49th, Colombia 50th, Argentina 53rd, Peru 59th and Venezuela 60th. Although Mexico, Chile,Argentina and Colombia have slightly improved their positions this year, all Latin American countriesin the study place in the bottom third of the ranking. Interestingly, Hungary is also at the bottom withits 56th position indicating that something deeper is amiss. Singapore claims 10th spot while other Asianeconomies enjoy mixed fortunes, with China Hong Kong rising from 21st to 12th. Similarly, Korea Rep.moves from the 40th to 31st position and Japan slightly improves from 28th to 26th. By contrast,Malaysia, which took fifth position last year, falls out of the top 10 and Indonesia ranks in the 41stplace, both countries experiencing a decline in a number of relevant performance indicators.Philippines drops three places to the 44th rank while Thailand remains at the 34th spot.

Europe emerges as a major source of, and a magnet for, business talent with eight countries in the top10, followed by Sweden 11th, Ireland 16th and Iceland 17th.

The report indicates that the key attribute among all the countries that rank highly is agility. This isshown in their capacity to adopt and shape policies that preserve their talent pipeline, which in turnmakes them what the report describes as “talent-competitive.” These countries have consistentlyachieved a positive balance between encouraging local talent and tapping into top talent from othercountries.

IV. HUNGARY IN THE IMD WTR 2015

4.1 The bird’s eye view on Hungary

Hungary has been ranked at the 56th place in the IMD WTR 2015 by showing a 5-places relative declineas compared to the 51st position in the previous in 2014. From a regional perspective, Hungary’s talentcompetitiveness has worsened the most among Visegrád countries (henceforward V4) since 2005(Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia) (Chart 1). The biggest decline was observable after2012. Let us add immediately that the fact that the ranking position got impaired the most by 2013does not necessarily mean that the complex set of causes had evolved during only the year 2012,simply because this type of process is an end result of longer term perceptions that manifested innegative opinions in the survey conducted.

Chart 1. Ranking history of V4 countries in the IMD WTR (2005-2015)

Source: Own compilation based on IMD WTR 2015.

2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5

Czech Republic Hungary Poland Slovakia

As far as investment and development is concerned between 2011 and 2015, Hungary was the only V4country which deteriorated dramatically rather than improved talent development and increased thetalent required investments (the most outstanding decline, -16 places, was between 2014 and 2015)(Chart 2). With respect to appeal and readiness factors, Hungary can be regarded as a laggard evenamong V4 countries (Chart 3-4). In terms of appeal, Hungary is ranked at the bottom in the overall list,only Bulgaria and Venezuela had worse values.

Chart 2. Investment and development factor in V4 countries

Chart 3. Appeal factor in V4 countries

Chart 4. Readiness factor in V4 countries

2011 2015

By taking a mere glimpse into the sub-indicators, at least the following smorgasbord of variedobservations can be made regarding the Hungarian case:

- in terms of total public expenditure on education as percentage of GDP, Hungary is in the middlefield with its 30th (2014) and 32nd (2015) positions. The relative domestic expenditures on educationis approximately at the average of the developed countries. (V4 positions in 2015: Czech Republic(25); Poland (23); Slovakia (47)). Hungary’s expenditure is similar to that of Ireland. Note that thesheer volume of the total public expenditure on education as percentage of GDP per se does notautomatically determine better positions in the rankings, however. For example, Singapore (56),Qatar (55) are at the end of the ranking in terms of this indicator, but these countries perform muchbetter in the overall ranking with the places of 10th and 29th, respectfully.

- in terms of public expenditure on education per pupil (secondary), Hungary has been at a relativelygood position since it was 22nd in 2014, while it ended at the 32nd place in 2015. Such expenditurein Hungary exceeded that of Israel both in 2014 and 2015, still, Israel has been well above Hungaryin the overall ranking by reaching the 22nd place in the IMD WTR 2015. (V4 positions in 2015: CzechRepublic (22); Poland (25); and Slovakia (38)).

- in terms of the pupil-teacher ratio (primary education), Hungary has an upscale place of its 6th

position after Luxembourg, Greece, Qatar, Iceland and Norway.- in terms of the pupil-teacher ratio (secondary education), Hungary was 14th in 2014, then it slipped

to 22 in 2015. In this respect, the Czech Republic (18) and Poland (14) had better performance thanHungary, while Slovakia ended at the 35th place. Albeit Hungary outdid inter alia Israel (25), Sweden(27), Finland (31), Germany (37), Singapore (38), and the Netherlands (51); the fact that Kazakhstan(5) or Russia (10) are ahead of Hungary implies that ending at the top in terms of this indicator doesnot necessarily mean that the education system is a fertile ground for talent. The optimal rate ofpupil-teacher at secondary education depends not only on the nature of education, but also on theversatility of institutions as well as on their size.

- in terms of apprenticeships, Hungary performs poorly (55), the country is exceeded even byMalaysia. V4 countries are performing relatively worse in general in this respect (Czech Republic(50), Poland (32), and Slovakia (52)).

- in terms of employee training, Hungary (53) is even feebler as compared to the Czech Republic (40),Poland (42), and Slovakia (34). Behind the surface of this result, it seems that competentleadership/management lacks of relevant knowledge and commitment, not to mention theirfinancial capacity to initiate employee trainings on the one hand, on the other hand the undermotivation of workers (57) is another factor that stifles such trainings.

- in terms of attracting and retaining talents, except the Czech Republic (41), other V4 countries seemto be ranked in a group of low performers (Hungary (57), Poland (61, Slovakia (58)).

- in terms of brain drain, the expressed opinions of Hungarian executives reflect the serious threataround this issue. Hungary is the 60th country in the ranking. Of course, brain drain is not anindependent variable, it is fundamentally influenced by other factors such as the dissatisfactionwith the quality of life in Hungary (56).

- in terms of attracting foreign high-skilled people, Hungarian executives found it hard to attract suchtalents in a sustainable way. While attracting them was deemed as relatively easier in the CzechRepublic (29) and Poland (42), Hungary (52) and Slovakia (53) are struggling in this respect.

- in terms of labour force growth, opinions has changed since 2014 simply because the expansion ofthe Hungarian labour force has started to be based on real private sector employment rather thanbeing driven by public work program. Thus, Hungary’s position improved from the 39th position of2014 to the 13th place in 2015. Still, the availability of skilled labour force in Hungary remains aproblematic factor (48th place in 2014, 53rd place in 2015), while other V4 countries can tap skilledlabour relatively better (Czech Republic (33), Poland (19), and Slovakia (34)).

- in terms of competent senior managers, they are considered as not readily available in Hungary (60)according to the opinions of executives, while they are better reached and utilised in the Czech

Republic (34), in Poland (20), and in Slovakia (49). The senior managers’ international experience inHungary is, all the more, relatively low (Czech Republic (20); Hungary (43); Poland (17); and Slovakia(40)). In connection to this dimension, the management education is surveyed as a field withsignificant shortcomings in Hungary (54). For comparison, the Czech Republic (30), Poland (24) andSlovakia (45) were deemed as places offering better management education.

- in terms of language skills, which is a glue of effective collaboration, has been considered as ratherdisquietingly problematic in case of Hungary (58). For comparison, the Czech Republic (32), Poland(17), and Slovakia (30) perform better.

In sum, one can lead to the conclusion that Hungary has been losing ground in terms of talentcompetitiveness. Furthermore, the big picture is that, except Poland, V4 countries’ talentcompetitiveness has been decreasing since 2005.10 This issue indicates that something deeper is amissimpeding the healthy knowledge creation and knowledge transfer through enhancing the talentcompetitiveness. In an effort to get a better understanding over this issue we shortly address thequestion of what is the situation with innovation in the higher education systems of Central andEastern European (CEE) EU member states, including V4 countries. Then we turn to the Hungarian caseand elaborate our thinking further on the talent-endowment issue.

4.2 A broader view on Hungary’s talent competitiveness

4.2.1 The Hungarian reality

Talent-endowment is more likely to be associated with a more pro-active, risk-taker entrepreneurialmind-set that can open the floodgates of innovation, ultimately that of longer term total factorproductivity. However, a growing number of studies have emphasised that productivity in case ofHungary has been either stagnating or slightly declining from 2006 onwards (Kónya, 2015:1132). It perse indicates that the innovation ecosystem of Hungary either lacks talent or at least utilise the talent-base in a rather inefficient way.11 Of course, talent can be interpreted in many ways, but in its core isthat each individual has abilities and skills to be elaborated further and utilised. In this process, theresponsibility of education system is enormous. The education system is responsible for In 2010, acomprehensive research revealed that the Hungarian higher education system and the academia werefeatured with the followings even after 20 years of the regime change: lacking or stalled reforms;significant distortions in the fields of employment, scientific promotion and scientific performanceevaluation methods; underdeveloped institutional and operational environment; academic viewlacking of economic relevance.12 In addition, as we documented elsewhere (Kovács, 2015, 2016), after2010, the Hungarian economic governance injected additional uncertainties into the innovationecosystem through its autocratic (Kornai, 2015) measures by leading to deteriorations in many aspects(zero-close potential economic growth, depressed investment activity, increasing poverty, heighteningimpoverishment, etc.). These are not conducive processes to breed and exploit talents.13

10 The Polish case is somewhat different. Poland faced a serious and ever-increasing outflow of people after joining theEuropean Union in 2004 (Kaczmarczyk – Okolski, 2008). The cited author found that the share of tertiary educated emigrantsof age group 25-29 increased from 21.6% to 33.7% after 2004, meaning that the drainage of highly educated people inyounger working age bracket has increased considerably after Poland had joined the EU. After 2008, more and more programwere dedicated to attracting emigrated Polish people back into the country (e.g. ReturntoPoland.pl; “Masz PLan na powrót?”(Have you got a PLan to return?)). After all, in recent years, return migration has become a decisive feature of the Polisheconomy (Lesińska, 2013). This huge wave of emigration was the root behind Poland’s worse place in the IMD WTR 2011, and the return migration has been a key driver of improvement.11 Kónya (2015:1121) recalibrated the total factor productivity (TFP) for Hungary by incorporating the human capital too andfound that TFP has been stagnating since 2006 in spite of the fact that the number of primary school graduates has beenshrinking and the proportion of higher education graduates has been increasing.12 See: Polónyi (2010).13 For example, according to Eurostat, the share of children at risk of poverty or social exclusion has been on a growingtrajectory only in Hungary among the EU member states. See: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/income-and-living-conditions/data/database Accessed on: 22.11.2015

Importantly, CEE region’s education performance has been lagging behind that of the WesternEuropean countries since 1870 and a more observable divergence gained momentum after 1990. Thiscan be justified by looking at the longue durée analysis of human wellbeing captured by the so-calledHistorical Index of Human Development, and it education component in particular.14 (Chart 5).

Chart 5. Education component of the Historical Index of Human Development (1870-2007)

Note: The education component measures literary and enrolment. The rate of adult literacy is defined as the percentageof the population aged 15 years or over who is able to read and write. Gross total enrolment rate provides the percentageof population in the relevant age cohort enrolled in primary, secondary, and tertiary education.Source: Historical Index of Human Development.

Although the education component for Hungary within the cited Historical Index of HumanDevelopment suggests that the Hungarian education converged to that of the OECD average up to1965, then the convergence lost its élan (Chart 6); this component does not adequately capture theperformance since it measures only literacy and enrolment. Historically, Hungary has been always at aposition like in the IMD WTR 2015. Against the popular belief, the Hungarian education has never beena world class one, it has not even been a strong medium performer, either.

According to the PISA surveys, Hungary has been in the last third in the rankings of developedcountries. The education system – which can be regarded as a stove of talent-creation that can unfoldtalents – has been always rather polarised. The majority of children are absorbed by moderate or poorperforming secondary grammar schools, poor secondary vocational schools, and very poor vocationalschools. The main point here is that not necessarily the education per se is worse than in othercountries but the variance of the PISA results is mainly higher based on the students’ socio-economicbackgrounds. In other words, the Hungarian education system cannot cope with the huge differencesamong students in terms of family, economic or urban situation etc., while such variance is significantlylower in other countries. As a corollary, the poor vocational school performance is mainly givenbecause of the selective nature of the system: the students getting in vocational schools haveinherently weak competencies being relevant for the purpose of PISA surveys. According to the PISA2012 survey, 15-year-olds’ problem solving ability was the worst in Hungary among V4 countries (Chart7) and it is in the last third of the countries listed.15

14 The Historical Index of Human Development (HIHD) is inspired in and adapts from a long run perspective The United NationsDevelopment Programme’s Human Development Index (HDI) (UNDP, 2014). A detailed explanation of the concept,computation procedures, and analysis of the results is provided in Prados de la Escosura (2015).15 According to Polónyi (2015), not only the PISA surveys, but also those that are to capture adult literacy and other skills (e.g.OECD’ ALL surveys) are conveying the message that Hungary has been on a declining trend. In addition, the proportion of

Western Europe Central and Eastern Europe OECD

Chart 6. Education component of the Historical Index of Human Development (1850-2007)

Note: Data for the V4 countries are available as follows: Czech Republic (1990-2007), Hungary (1870-2007), Poland (1870-2007), Slovakia (1990-2007).Source: The Historical Index of Human Development, Prados de la Escosura (2015).

Chart 7. 15-year-olds’ problem solving proficiency

Source: OECD, PISA 2012, Figure V. 2.7

illiterate people in Hungary has not basically changed since 1890! In this regard, Hungary continues to be one of the worstperformers. See more on this issue: Sáska (2006:11).

Czech Republic Hungary Poland

Slovakia Western Europe Central and Eastern Europe

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Montenegro 0.4Malaysia 0.5

Colombia 0.3Uruguay 0.6Bulgaria 1.2

Brazil 0.7Chile 1.0

Turkey 1.8United Arab Emirates 1.7

Croatia 3.6Serbia 2.8

Hungary 4.1Slovenia 5.3

Poland 5.7Russian Federation 4.2

Portugal 5.1Spain 4.4

Slovak Republic 6.0Denmark 5.6

Sweden 5.6Israel 6.6

Ireland 6.8Italy 6.2

Austria 8.0OECD average 8.2United States 7.5

Estonia 9.3Czech Republic 9.0

France 9.5Germany 9.9

Norway 7.9Netherlands 11.5

England (United…Belgium 10.8Finland 12.0

Macao-China 12.6Australia 12.0

Canada 12.0Shanghai-China 17.9Chinese Taipei 17.1

Hong Kong-China 15.9Japan 16.0Korea 20.9

Singapore 25.0

Level 5 Level 6Percentage of top performers inproblem solving and at least one other

Graduated students from the vocational schools predominantly have low general literacy and they arethe labour force for the Hungarian industry and services. It is hardly by chance that the executives fromHungary expressed that they almost always have to pay attention to further training and education.16

Higher education institutions are also weak, only a few universities are among the top 500-600 at theworld ranking.17 Hungarian universities are even among the last ones among the Eastern Europeanuniversities.18 One of the consequences of this is the relatively low share of adult population withadvanced education. In 2013, that share was 19.4% within the total number of adult people which isslightly above that of the Moldovan 19%, and it was even below that of the Greek 22.3%!19 From alonger perspective, the share of people aged 30-34, who can be young innovative entrepreneurs, inHungary with tertiary education has been converging to the EU28 average by reaching 89% in 2014;still it is well below that of the Polish 111% (Chart 8). As a corollary, the performance level of theHungarian higher education is mainly at the bottom of the developed countries. These institutions areoffering the Hungarian professional intellectual base.20

Chart 8. Share of people aged 30-34 with tertiary education (%, EU28=100)

Source: Own compilation based on Eurostat data.

Interestingly, the Hungarian society seems to ignore these facts since the Hungarian parents want theirchild to be graduated from a university in a more vigorous way as compared to the German or Belgianparents (PISA 2012:22).

16 There are multiple reasons behind the weak performance, the following is also crucial: 1) the salary of teachers with 15years of experience (PPP, $) at all levels of education lags far behind the OECD average (lower than that of Mexico or Turkey).See: OECD Statistics. 2) Teachers with poorer skills and ability to teach have become decisive leading to low-skilled and poorlyeducated graduates.17 Only four Hungarian universities were ranked in the QS World University Rankings 2014/2015, See:http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2014#sorting=rank+region=+country=+faculty=+stars=false+search Nonetheless, such rankings always have its distortions. These rankings are incapable ofcapturing the multiple the variety and size of universities, but their number. A substantial improvement can also be seen incase of a particular university when it “bought” professors having long publication lists that matters a lot, however, the qualityof education does not necessarily improve in parallel. The teacher-student ratio is heavily dependent on the type ofeducation, the nature of the offered courses. That number per se does not tell much about the quality level of education.18 See: QS EECA, or in Hungarian: http://hvg.hu/vilag/20141217_kelet_europai_egyetemi_rangsor/ Accessed on: 24.11.201519 See: ILOSTAT, Available: https://www.ilo.org/ilostat/faces/home/statisticaldata/ContryProfileId?_afrLoop=26159967254892#%40%3F_afrLoop%3D26159967254892%26_adf.ctrl-state%3D9y4597a3m_171 Accessed on: 25.11.201520 For example, the best education of economics in Hungary was found to be at Corvinus University of Budapest which is 700th

in the QS World University Rankings, while in the ranking of University Ranking by Academic Performance, which measuresthe quality of research, was at a place of 2500th.

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Nevertheless, the share of people aged 25-64 with tertiary education has been mainly stagnating onlyin Hungary among V4 countries between 2008 and 2014 (Chart 9). This graph pinpoints the halt of thehuman capital accumulation. Not to mention that this chart might also indicate that highly educatedpeople have been more likely to go abroad and get job in this period. The major part of emigrants aretypically active adults, people aged 25-34 (e.g. in 2013, their number was approx. 10,000).21

Chart 9. Share of people aged 25-64 with tertiary education (%, EU28=100)

Source: Own compilation base on Eurostat data.

According to Eurostat statistics, the annual number of emigrated people from Hungary was between2,500 and 3,100 in the period 1998-2003, then joining the EU accelerated the pace of emigration byreaching the annual number of 3,700-4,500 between 2004 and 2007. The advent of the GreatRecession, due to the 2008 financial and economic crisis and its ensuing Eurozone sovereign debt crisis,triggered even more emigration on a yearly basis (more than 10,000 people emigrated per yearbetween 2008 and 2010). In addition, as we mentioned earlier, the ruling cabinet of Hungary injectedso much uncertainties over the present and the future that resulted in a more vehement andspectacular emigration trend from 2010 onwards. In 2010, the number of emigrant people was 13,365,while it more than doubled to 34,691 by 2013.22

The above considerations imply that history and legacy matters, especially in CEE region. This calls fordifferential diagnosis when it comes to fostering talent management and the ability of talent to prevailin CEE regions. In the following we shed more lights on this issue.

4.2.2 Higher education, academia, and innovation in the CEE region

In this section we argue that CEE member states are still coping with the heritage of past hamperingthe evolvement of a healthy innovative milieu in higher education and academia. This affectsnegatively the latitude of developing, attracting and keeping top talent by these knowledge creatorand transfer institutions.

21 See: Eurostat, Emigration by five year age group, sex and citizenship, migr_emi1ctz database. Available:http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do Accessed on: 25.11.201522 See: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do, Emigration by age and sex, migr_emi2. Accessed on: 24.11.2015.What is more, the share of people aged 25-64 with tertiary education in Poland was increasing between 2008 and 2014. Thiswas the result of at least two contradictory processes: while more and more people emigrated from Poland after 2008 (morethan 74,000 people emigrated in 2008, which rose to over 229,000 by 2009, and that number was more than 276,000 evenin 2013), there was a growing number of Polish people who returned during this period (the number of returning Polishpeople was 142,348 in 2009, compared to the 35,891 of 2008, that number was more than 131,000 even in 2013).http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do Immigration by age, sex and broad group of citizenship,migr_imm2ctz, Accessed on: 24.11.2015

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Now we are living in a ‘learning economy’ where the knowledge production and the ability of actorsto rapidly gain new competences are the key driving forces of innovations and therefore those of thecompetitiveness. Talents have a key role in this process as they can be both the sources of newknowledge and the translators of relevant knowledge into practice. The withering growth performanceof the European Union (EU) relates partly to the research performance in which the roles of academicsphere and higher education are crucial.23 Consequently, the Science and Technology Policy (STP), asthe accelerator of scientific and technological development and also as the institutional factor in theeconomic utilization of innovative outcomes, is a noteworthy field in the EU. Since new technology isnot the panacea in itself, the raison d'être of higher education and academic sphere is the provision ofwell-educated graduates with developed learning skills who are able to generate and use newknowledge in order to increase the absorption-capacity of society regarding new technologies. This iswhat not has happened in the same vehement as in the main competitive partners of the EU like theUS or South Korea by leading to the deceleration of total factor productivity growth over time (Halmai,2014; Dabla-Norris et al. 2015:7).

While, higher education reforms invoked to encourage innovation have been introduced across Europeduring the last 25 years, the innovation gap has gently decreased between the EU and its traditionalcompetitors, the US and Japan as well as Asia who is catching up dynamically. South Korea, the US andJapan have innovation performances that dominate the EU in aspects like “[…] business activity asmeasured by R&D expenditures in the business sector, public-private co-publications and PCT patents,but also in educational attainment as measured by the share of population having completed tertiaryeducation. Enterprises in these countries invest more in research and innovation, and collaborativeknowledge-creation between public and private sectors is better developed. The skilled workforce inthese countries is also relatively larger than in the EU.” (European Commission, 2015:32). Behind thecurtain of this performance gap, a myriad of studies emphasised that the European universities havebeen underachieving due to their unsatisfactory autonomy and the lack of inevitable managerialapproach (Aghion et al. 2007). Other equally important constituents of the gap are the relatively lowinvestments in the university system, the perceivable shortcomings in the issue of monitoring andassessment, and the distorting incentives. STP and innovation policies should incorporate theseimperfections and also have to be aware of the different situations decipherable in the case of CEE.

From the supply-side of view, school attainment of the proportion of population ages 25-64 years in

post-socialist CEE countries is substantially higher than in case of similarly developed countries. It

reflects that the efficiency of education system is much worse comparing to traditionally market-

oriented economies. From the demand-side of view, the epochal transformations took place in the

1990s calls our attention to the more complex set of issues in case of CEE countries. It seems that path-

dependency played (is playing) a conspicuous role and this is why ‘the past has a future’ in CEE

countries.

One of the fundamental leitmotifs behind the collapse of the state socialism was the inability to

innovate, which can be attributed to the characteristics of the institutional system rather than to the

conventionally postulated dominancy of state ownership and to the absence of private ownership (or

to its infinitesimal presence). With the benefit of hindsight, it can be easily justified by the relatively

low innovation performance of the post-socialist EU member states conveying the message that the

institutional features have not been gone through significant changes. For example, the Hungarian

path can be regarded as a more or less ubiquitous phenomenon in the CEE countries, which underpins

that the lower-than-expected level of innovation-driven economic development is, to a non-negligible

23 The weaving relation among the three depressing forces such as the 2008 financial and economic crisis, its ensuingsovereign debt crisis in the Euro area, and the lacklustre crisis management, triggered a recessionary effect. In a time ofrecession, risky undertakings like research and development and bigger scale innovations are doomed to be delayed orsuspended resulting in an even more vulnerable growth potential.

extent, induced by the organisational, operational and managerial features of academic sphere. The

structure and the motivation regime of the academy has not changed much and the formal

(administrative) academic performances as well as the places in the hierarchy are dominating the real

scientific performances.

Higher education system, especially state universities in post-socialist countries are mainly self-managing and behave like socialist enterprises with the dominancy of bureaucratic coordination(Polónyi, 2010). These peculiarities are unequivocally influencing their willingness to innovate. Owingto self-managing, the major aim is to maximise wages and salaries whereby they are to a large degreedisposed to use their innovation ability primarily for reaching subsidies and allowances provided bythe state. This kind of rent-seeking is extremely preferred in such a situation where the properperformance assessment structure is scantily working. Government support R&D and innovationthrough various entitlements and define on what research and innovation should the financial sourcesbe spent. The fathomable reason behind this is the government’s assumption regarding theuniversities that they would not be able to target the financial sources as efficiently as the government.As a consequence, organisations managed by non-market coordination are tend to be condemned tolow level of innovation efficiency.

Taking into account the major prerequisites of impulsive innovation dynamism (decentralisedinitiation; high reward; competition; opportunity for wide experiments and the flexibility of financing),emphasised by Kornai (2010), the following observations can be made based upon the work of Polónyi(2010). State universities have hierarchical career system that affects negatively the decentralisedinitiations, because upper level representatives of the organisation incline to exercise control over theknowledge emerging in low level in order to benefit from it. Ambitious amount of reward for thosewho explicitly carry out innovations is principally outstanding. The employment system promisessalient incomes at the end of university (academic) career by utilising network capital, accumulatingdifferent leading positions in state organisations and concentrating on rent-seeking. As a result, thistype of employment- and income system scrolls easily obstacles towards the healthy competition. Thecareer model narrows the latitude of opportunities for providing wide range of experiments, becausethe burdens on employees are the greatest when the intellectual conditions would be the best. Asregards the flexibility of finance, the sources are planned on governmental instead of institutionallevel. It obviously questions that whether the sources inflowing to lower levels of organisations aresufficient.

As a corollary, differential diagnosis is a must when it comes to promoting talent-competitiveness by

facilitating innovation at higher education and academia in the CEE countries, including Hungary. STP

and innovation policymakers should more vigorously take into consideration the repercussion of the

industrial restructuring took place in the CEE countries in the 1990s (Rainer et al. 2009). Despite the

rapid industrial restructuring, CEE countries have been more or less locked into low value added

economic activity in contrast with the requirement of the new techno-economic paradigm24 (i.e. high

value added products and services via knowledge management in companies instead of specialisation

into lower end of value chain). The modular-production especially in ICT had distorting impact on the

basis of CEE countries’ innovation policy. The statistics took into account the low value added export

products (e.g. screens of cell phones) as high technology products envisioning that the share of high-

tech export is well-performing. Nonetheless the general expenditure on R&D and innovation as a

percentage of GDP and the patent applications declined simultaneously in the aftermath of industrial

restructuring. Accordingly, the industry needs were not captured by the innovation policy adequately

which neglected that the structural changes resulted in specialisation in lower end of value chains. In

24 On new techno-economic paradigm, see Perez (2009).

addition, this type of internal configuration did not provide a coercive power to bolster talent

utilisation and education at a more professional quality level.

Even the Europeanization of innovation policy in CEE countries, especially the availability to EU

structural funds, had negative impact on innovation policy. There were not enough administrative

capacity and experience with long-term planning, and the routine in cooperation and coordination of

networks also suffered from hiatus.

The processes were weak in terms of coercive power to arouse the policymakers’ attention to the fact

that the society’s absorption capacity mostly depends on such higher education system in which the

structural lock-in effect of the past institutional settings and managerial attitude are converted into a

coordination-ready status, and to be complemented with the necessary autonomy. However, the EU’s

aim to alleviate the weakness of labour market establishes a claim to these changes invoked to make

enable both the unemployed and employed people to have better opportunity to maintain and

upgrade their obtained skills. The ability of people to learn, apply and utilise new knowledge bears the

torch of innovation and overall the human well-being at present and in the future alike.

V. CONCLUDING REMARKS

IMD World Talent Report 2015 is an alarming bell warning us that Hungary has been on a deterioratingtrend in terms of talent competitiveness. From a broader perspective, Hungary’s position can be seenas an unfortunate, but logical outcome by taking into account the historical performance of itseducation system as well as the changes happened or not happened during the last decades.

On the one hand, the Hungarian education system needs a complex reform package spanning acrossthe whole spectrum (primary, secondary, tertiary education levels, including the research sphere)through providing financial support, development programmes, new incentive regimes withperformance monitoring and evaluation systems). Such development policy should also act to bridgethe gap between well-endowed and developing and lagging behind education institutions that arelagging deeply behind. In addition, the academy needs to be streamlined in the sense that real scientificperformances must be pursued and taken as guiding principle instead of building on administrativeperformances.

On the other hand, with a more holistic approach, the above mentioned recommendations seem tobe inevitable and necessary but by no means sufficient. Education system is an important but not theonly one element in the innovation ecosystem of Hungary in which talents can be sparked or evenstifle under some circumstances (e.g. increasing uncertainties because of the spectacular deteriorationof formal institutions, and weakening checks and balances in the democratic system). This wasdocumented in our forthcoming paper (Kovács, 2016). In that study, we illustrate that the rulingcabinet of Hungary has systematically broken down the quality of formal institutions in the aftermathof 2010.25 An autocratic regime has emerged (Kornai, 2015) pervaded by more nationalism and moremacroeconomic populism. What is more, expenditures on education in Hungary was significantlydecreased rather than increased being in the diametrical opposition of what happens in the advancedworld.26 In an institutionally weak environment, talent’s motivation can be easily fuelled by morelucrative rent-seeking activities as Arezki et al (2012) documented. In this way, talent, at least, tendsto shift out of private entrepreneurial activity into those fields, with detrimental implications forefficiency and sustainable economic growth. Institutions need to be redesigned in Hungary to guardagainst such developments by creating a more solid chance for fleurs du mal in Hungary.

25 This was also sensitively presented by Muraközy (ed.) (2012).26 This argument was also confirmed by the latest OECD issue, Education at a Glance 2015, see: OECD (2015).

References

Aghion, P. – Dewatripon, M. – Hoxby, C. – Mas-Colell, A. – Sapir, A. (2007): Why Reform Europe’sUniversities? Bruegel, Policy Brief, Issue 4.

Arezki, Rabah, Thorvaldur Gylfason, and Amadou Sy, (eds.) (2012). Beyond the Curse: Policies toHarness the Power of Natural Resources (Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund).

Blanchard, O. (2013): Five Lessons from the Financial Crisis. Speech at What should economists andpolicymakers learn from the financial crisis? Conference, London School of Economics, 25 March2013 in Old Theatre, Old Building.

Boulding, K. E. (1950): A Reconstruction of Economics. New York: Wiley.

Dabla-Norris, E. – Guo, S. – Haksar, V. – Kim, M. – Kochhar, K. – Wiseman, K. – Zdzienicka, A. (2015):The New Normal: A Sector-Level Perspective on Productivity Trends in Advanced Economies. IMFStaff Discussion Note 03

Davis, S. (2010): The Adverse Feedback Loop and the Effects of Risk in Both the Real and FinancialSectors. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Globalization and Monetary Policy Institute WorkingPaper No. 66.

Chowdhury, S. (2005): The Role of Affect- and Cognition-based Trust in Complex Knowledge Sharing.Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 17, No. 3. pp. 310-326.

European Commission (2015): Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015. European Commission, DG InternalMarket, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs. Available:http://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/innovation/facts-figures/scoreboards/files/ius-2015_en.pdf Accessed on: 22.11.2015

Halmai, P. (2014): Krízis és növekedés az Európai Unióban. Európai modell, strukturális reformok.Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.

IMD (2015): IMD World Trade Report 2015. IMD, Switzerland.

Kaczmarczyk, P. – Okolski, M. (2008): Economic impacts of migration on Poland and the Baltic states.Fafo, 2008:01, p1-77.

Knight, F. H. (1921): Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. New York: Harper.

Kornai, J. (2010): Innovation and Dynamism. Interaction between systems and technical progress.Economics of Transition, Vol.18. No. 4, pp. 629-670.

Kornai, J. (2015): Hungary’s U-turn. Society and Economy, Vol. 37., No. 3 pp. 279-329.

Kónya, I. (2015): Több gép vagy nagyobb hatékonyság? Növekedés, tőkeállomány és termelékenység Magyarországon 1995-2013 között. /More Machines or Increased Efficiency? Economic Growth,Capital and Productivity in Hungary, 1995-2013. Közgazdasági Szemle, Vol. 62., November 2015,pp. 1117-1139.

Kovács, O. (2015 - forthcoming): A magyar différance. Köz-Gazdaság, Vol. 10., No. 4, pp.

Kovács, O. (2016 – forthcoming): The Hungarian Agony over Eurozone Accession. In: Magone, J. M. –Laffan, B. – Schweiger, C. (2016): Core-periphery Relations in the European Union. Power andConflict in a Dualist Political Economy. Routledge, London. Chapter 16.

Lesińska, M. (2013): The Dilemmas of Policy Towards Return Migration. The Case of Poland after the EU Accession. Central and Eastern European Migration Review, Vol. 2., No. 1, pp. 77-90.

Muraközy, L. (ed.) (2012): A bizalmatlanság hálójában. A magyar beteg (In the net of uncertainty. TheHungarian patient). Corvina Kiadó, Budapest. 240. o.

OECD (2015): Education at a Glance 2015. Available: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/9615031e.pdf?expires=1448873620&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=EA6BCD3D6CB40BE1490E41E0F9067203 Accessed on: 30.11.2015

Perez, C. (2009): Technological revolutions and techno-economic paradigms. TOC/TUT Working PaperNo. 20.

Polónyi, I. (2010): Az akadémiai szféra és az innováció – A hazai felsőoktatás és a gazdasági fejlődés. (The Academic Sphere and Innovation – The Domestic Higher Education and the EconomicDevelopment), Új Mandátum Kiadó, 2010.

Polónyi, I. (2015): A papírgyárakról másfél évtized után. Magyar Tudomány, Vol. 176., No. 7. pp. 813-818

Prichett, L. (2001): Where Has All the Education Gone? World Bank Economic Review, Vol. 15., No. 3,pp. 367-391.

Rainer, K. – Reinert, E. S. – Suurna, M. (2009): Industrial Restructuring and Innovation Policy in Centraland Eastern Europe since 1990s. TUT Institute of Public Administration, Working Papers No. 23.

Sáska, G. (2006): Európa oktatásügye, ahogy a Kárpát-medencéből látszik. Iskolakultúra, 2006, No. 1. Available: http://epa.oszk.hu/00000/00011/00100/pdf/iskolakultura_EPA00011_2006_01_003-016.pdf Accessed on: 11.11.2015

Shakhnov, K (2014): The Allocation of Talent: Finance vs. Entrepreneurship. EUI Working Paper ECONo. 13.

Taleb, N. N. (2014): Antifragile. Things that Gain from Disorder. Random House Trade Paperbacks.

IMD World Talent Report 2015 - No Fleurs du Mal for Hungary?

Documents

Produktfamilie IMD - igas-download.de · Produktfamilie IMD IMD-310/5 IMD-310/5F IMD-310/10F Erstinbetriebnahme Version 2.1 Autor: A. Hahlweg Meßgeräte und Elektronik GmbH

Aracelli ultimo imd

Enfermedades respiratorias imd

Sosialisasi -IMD RISA

IMD Presentation v5

Folleto IMD Basauri

Cuadro Imd

IMD 203 - Ch01

Aula Zero IMD - dca.ufrn.brheitorm/aulasIMD/aulaZeroIMD2014-1.pdf · Aula Zero IMD Sejam todos bem vindos(as) ao IMD-UFRN! Tutor: Heitor Medeiros

IMD - GLPI

Imd 203 - Ch07

Tablas Transito IMD

Competitividad IMD 2012

≈Imd( .gvd ( gIt;

Imd presentation

IMD Sevilla

Инструкция Powercom IMD-1500AP · Источники бесперебойного питания Powercom IMD-1500AP: Инструкция пользователя.

Brecha digital IMD

TP3 IMD 2013

IMD Creatief Merkdocument